Allahabad Court July 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shivendra Pal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3770
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order/letter dated 23.12.2004 passed by the Director/Principal, Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow (respondent No. 2) besides a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to continue him as a hostler sports college at Green Park, Kanpur in pursuance of certificates dated 23.8.2005 and 2.9.2005 granted to him and appended as Annexures-1 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.3. By the aforesaid impugned order the petitioner has been restrained from taking training in the respondent-sports college.4. It appears that after trials from 1.10.2004 to 4.10.2004 and participation in the camp for probables from 5.10.2004 to 7.10.2004 the petitioner was selected for training in the respondent-sports college. He appears to have fallen ill and had undergone medical treatment from 8.10.2004 to 22.12.2004. His guardian informe...
Udyami Evam Khadi Gram Udyog Walfare Sanstha and anr. Vs. State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1647
U.K. Dhaon and Alok K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard Shri Pankaj Agnihotri, holding brief of Shrl Prashant Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, the learned Counsel for opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 5. Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 4 has been accepted by Shri A.K. Srivastava.2. The petitioners have alleged that petitioner No. 1 is a registered Association which is looking after the welfare of the members who are obtaining financial assistance from U.P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board and petitioner No. 2 is Secretary of the Association.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the provisions of Section 35A of the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 are unconstitutional and the same is ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the recovery certificates dated 14.9.2005, 19.7.2005 a...
Satya Vrat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3771
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Misra, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4.2. On 6.7.2006 it had been indicated in the order sheet that as pure question of law regarding interpretation and application of Full Bench authority of this Court in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. 2005 (99) RD 823, was involved, hence no counter-affidavit was required.3. The matter pertains to grant of 10 years lease for fishing rights in respect of pond comprised in plot No. 419 area 1.335 hectares situate in village Dandopur Tahsil Padrauna district Kushi Nagar. Petitioner was granted 10 years lease for fishing rights in respect of the pond in dispute as he was the highest bidder in the auction held on 23.1.2006. Petitioner's bid was for Rs. Two lacs for ten years. Petitioner also deposited 1/4th of the said amount, i.e., Rs. 50,000. It has also been stated that no person belonging to fishermen's community or scheduled caste/scheduled tribes participated in th...
Hamidullah (D) by L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Budhoo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3816
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 11.7.2006, the case is listed today.2. Case called out in the revised list.3. Learned Counsel for the parties are not present.4. A perusal of the orders, dated 29.11.2005. 20.1.2006. 27.1.2006, 21.2.2006, 27.2.2006. 6.3.2006, 20.3.2006 and 11.7.2006 passed on the order-sheet, shows that the case is being repeatedly adjourned either on the illness-slips sent by the learned Counsel for the parties or on account of the learned Counsel for the parties not appearing before the Court even when the case has been taken up in the revised list.5. In view of the above, the Court has no option but to dismiss the second appeal for want of prosecution.6. The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution....
Shiv Prasad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4141
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.5.2006, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur setting aside order dated 26.6.1999 of Consolidation Officer passed on the basis of compromise dated 8.6.1999 as well as order dated 18.6.2003, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Appeal whereby the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer attended with direction to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity of adducing evidence as also of hearing to the parties.2. The facts beyond the pale of controversy are that the land in dispute was acquired by one Babu Lal , a common ancestor of all three branches of Hira Lal , Kamta and Moti. It would thus appear that all the three Branches inherited the property. It would further appear that some compromise-dated 8.6.1999 came to be entered into between the parties and on the basis of said compromise, the Consolidatio...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Asstt. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC277
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. The real focus of challenge in the instant petition is on the order dated 10.6.1999 passed by Asstt. Consolidation Commissioner. Agra whereby order dated 28.10.1989 passed by Asstt. Consolidation Officer in case No. 5492 under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act Dinesh Kumar v. State of U. P., was set aside.2. Before delving in to the merit of the case, this Court feels called to delve in to the aspect how the petitioner employed every device and tactic to ward off the final hearing and how the counsel permitted himself to be over-persuaded for the cause of his client.3. A brief summary of the course of this petition since its institution in the year 2000 may be recapitulated here. The petition having been instituted in the year 2000, after the order dated 6.7.2000, issuing notice to the opposite party No. 3, and granting interim order, the case was taken up on 14.5.2004 on which date it was adjourned for being put up on 25.5.2004 on the request of Sri U.K. Mis...
Brahma Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC205
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the confirmation of auction sale of his agricultural land for a sum of Rs. 1,62,000.2. It appears that Case No. W.C.A. 18 of 2001 was filed by the Tahsildar-respondent No. 5 against the petitioner in the Court of Commissioner, Bijnor Division, Bijnor under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming that late Sri Radheyshyam, an employee of the petitioner, died in the course of employment.3. The petitioner contested the case alleging that, (i) late Sri Radheyshyam was a Mechanic and was not an employee of the petitioner and (ii) the petitioner being a small farmer having only 16-17 Bighas agricultural land was not in a position to engage employees.4. The case of the petitioner is that he and respondent No. 5 entered into a compromise, in pursuance whereof, he paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent No. 5 in the presence of villagers. Compromise deed dated 7th May, 2002 has been filed as An...
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. District Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)109ITD215(All.)
1.(i) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in corning to the conclusion that the interest income of Rs. 572.99. lacs (out of the amount of Rs. 10,77,60,566/- shown in the para 4.0 of his order) earned on deposits with U.P. Co-operative Bank and other banks is covered Under Section 80P(2)(i) of I.T. Act, 1961 relying on the decisions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank 251 ITR 194 and CIT v. Rani Nath District Central Bank 255 ITR 423. (ii) In the present case, the deposits have been shown by the assessee bank in its balance sheet-as Investment and therefore in view of the CBDT Circular No. 528 dated. 16.12.88, the income therefrom is to be assessed as Income From Other Sources. In the cases relied on by the Ld. CIT(A), the deposits/ security were held as Stock in Trade and hence income therefrom was held to be Business Income eligible for deduction Under Section 80P(2)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the or...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Manager, Local Offic ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC252; (2007)ILLJ45All
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. Respondent-worker Mohd. Asfaq at Kanpur sustained an employment injury in his left hand on 10.7.1978. He was referred under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 to the Medical Board for determination of his disablement, in consequence thereof the Medical Board after examining him found 3% permanent loss of his earning capacity awardable to the worker. The said loss was calculated at Rs. 2066.25 which the relevant office of the Corporation paid to respondent-worker as loss of his earning capacity after sending the respondent-worker a letter of information dated 7.10.1980.2. The respondent-worker, thereafter, preferred an appeal No. 81 of 1980 (Mohd. Asfaq v. E.S.I. Corporation) under Section 54A of the afore noted Act on 23.10.1980 before the Employees' Insurance Court, Kanpur, which the judge allowed partly and thereby modified the decision of the Medical Board to the extent that the worker Mohd. Asfaq will be awarded 5% loss of his earning c...
Priti Jaiswal D/O Shri Mewa Lal Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Thr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3688
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Original answer sheets have been produced today and counsel for the petitioner has perused them.2. Standing counsel states that there is no provision for re-evaluation of copies. However, under order of this Court, re-evaluation may be made.3. In a large number of cases, it is noted that scrutiny of marks of the student is not serving the purpose, as many of them, i.e. approximately 10% of total number of students apply to scrutiny and a number of these students have come up before this Court with the allegation that they have done well but have been awarded less marks. By adding marks in the individual copies, relative difference of answer of other candidates cannot be ascertained as copies are checked by different examiners and variation of marks is but natural.4. Counsel for the petitioner states that when student is not satisfied with the marks awarded to him as he feels that less marks have been awarded, only then he prays for scrutiny of marks.5. Standing coun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »